Electronic Arts Selected for Multi-Year Agreement for the Future of Star Wars Gaming

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think going to HD, allowing the Wii 2 to play blu-rays, continuing to offer full backward compatibility, and introducing a better WiiMote would've been the way to go, and would've been what the market preferred.

While I can get behind the HD (since most people have HD TVs at this point) and even better Wiimote motion controls, the problem with the rest of that argument is that it would of driven up the cost of the system needlessly by adding that extra hardware needed for Gamecube compatibility and paying licensing fees to Sony for blu-ray. Nintendo wanted to keep the cost down to maximize profit, especially since most people already have alternative means for those features (standalone DVD/blu-ray players, PS3 with blu-ray, a Gamecube, original Wii with Gamecube compatibility, etc). Unlike Nintendo's systems, Microsoft and Sony's systems (which are already being sold at a substantially more expensive price than Nintendo systems to begin with) are actually being sold at a greater loss. If they were being sold at their actual retail value they would be closer to the $600 to $800 price range. In fact, with as long as the PS3 and Xbox 360 systems have been on the market, they are only just recently on the cusp of seeing a profit. The Wii U system on the other hand, while also being sold at a loss and having dismal sales since its launch, is already in the black by some reports. The same likely cant be said of the upcoming PS4 and new Xbox until several years have passed. For the record though, Gamecube hasn't been entirely forgotten about by Nintendo for the Wii U. The Gamecube (like the NES, SNES, N64 and other company's previous systems) is supposed to be eventually available to some extent on the Virtual Console.

Originally Posted by El Chuxter

Even Sony and Microsoft tried to jump on the craze with the Move and Kinect. The Move I have not tried (and it looks silly), and Kinect is the buggiest piece of crap I've ever seen and it's tough to see why Microsoft didn't dump it within a few months. The WiiMote worked quite well, and the WiiMote Plus even better. Why not get better at what people want, and other companies can't come close to matching you on?

Sony and Microsoft's new systems are also either already confirmed (PS4) or rumored (next Xbox) to be jumping on the "touch craze" to some extent like the Wii U. Sony's PS4 "duelshock 4" controller will have a touch pad (similar to a laptop's touch pad) on it. Sony also recently took out a patent for a "touch screen" game controller similar to the Wii U's touch screen controller. The new Xbox is also rumored to have a touch pad on it's controller. The new systems are also going to continue to support the motion functions of their predecessors. The PS4 has PS move compatibility. The new Xbox system is rumored to come bundled with an improved Kinect. Microsoft is also working on a project known as IllumiRoom. By combining a Kinect camera and a projector, IllumiRoom turns the area around your television into a game screen. The Kinect captures the appearance and geometry of the room, and then it uses this data to adapt the extra visuals that are projected against the wall and furniture around your TV.

I want to go back in time and kill Steve Jobs as an infant, preventing this touch-screen thing from ever catching on. The screens never seem to work for me, so I guess I'm going to have to be stuck in the stone age forever since everything is moving in that direction.

Oh, I said "laptop controller" only in reference to the absurd size of the thing.

Ah. I dunno, it's definitely more tablet sized than laptop big, it's not THAT big, it's smaller than an ipad.

Originally Posted by Lord Malakite

I think the general idea was that a majority of people buying the Wii U wouldn't need the Wii stuff packaged with the system on account that they likely already owned said stuff from the original Wii system. Why make the system unnecessarily more expensive when a majority of the perspective buyers already own it.

Locking yourself into only 1 sales audience is dumb, now instead of getting consumers who were on the fence with the Wii and passed, you're ensuring they're not going to join the party. Who wants to buy a $300 console that doesn't come with its chief playing mechanism? The Wii Pad (ha!) is not really its chief control mechanism for the majority of software being sold on the machine.

You know, I've never really looked at it as trying to cash in on the tablet craze. I see it more as trying to cash in on the success of the Nintendo DS in home console form. The TV is the upper DS screen and the touch screen on the Wii U controller is the lower touch screen of the DS.

I can see how that's sort of the idea, but the DS doesn't have motion controls, the DS has 2 screens right next to each other for a single user while the Wii U's Pad is often touted as coordinated play between 2 players, it's definitely got some of the current tablet crazy feel to its premise IMO. It's got motion controls, NFC, a camera and speakers, that's tablet territory, even if some are also on the DS.

Originally Posted by Lord Malakite

While I can get behind the HD (since most people have HD TVs at this point) and even better Wiimote motion controls, the problem with the rest of that argument is that it would of driven up the cost of the system needlessly by adding that extra hardware needed for Gamecube compatibility and paying licensing fees to Sony for blu-ray. Nintendo wanted to keep the cost down to maximize profit, especially since most people already have alternative means for those features (standalone DVD/blu-ray players, PS3 with blu-ray, a Gamecube, original Wii with Gamecube compatibility, etc). Unlike Nintendo's systems, Microsoft and Sony's systems (which are already being sold at a substantially more expensive price than Nintendo systems to begin with) are actually being sold at a greater loss. If they were being sold at their actual retail value they would be closer to the $600 to $800 price range. In fact, with as long as the PS3 and Xbox 360 systems have been on the market, they are only just recently on the cusp of seeing a profit. The Wii U system on the other hand, while also being sold at a loss and having dismal sales since its launch, is already in the black by some reports. The same likely cant be said of the upcoming PS4 and new Xbox until several years have passed. For the record though, Gamecube hasn't been entirely forgotten about by Nintendo for the Wii U. The Gamecube (like the NES, SNES, N64 and other company's previous systems) is supposed to be eventually available to some extent on the Virtual Console.

The PS3 has been sold at a profit for the last 3 years, the Xbox 360 for the last 5 years.

Meanwhile, the Wii U is sold at a loss - despite its middling hardware (seriously, who puts a 1.2ghz tri-core CPU, a 550mhz GPU, and just 2gb RAM, and 8gb flash memory in a next-gen console?!? My cellphone has better specs and it's a cellphone) - and without the blu-ray and gamecube emulation (which WOULD have been easy had they put truly next-gen hardware in this thing) the Wii U's sales are in a tailspin, April's sales were down 19% from March's.

Sony and Microsoft's new systems are also either already confirmed (PS4) or rumored (next Xbox) to be jumping on the "touch craze" to some extent like the Wii U. Sony's PS4 "duelshock 4" controller will have a touch pad (similar to a laptop's touch pad) on it. Sony also recently took out a patent for a "touch screen" game controller similar to the Wii U's touch screen controller. The new Xbox is also rumored to have a touch pad on it's controller. The new systems are also going to continue to support the motion functions of their predecessors. The PS4 has PS move compatibility. The new Xbox system is rumored to come bundled with an improved Kinect. Microsoft is also working on a project known as IllumiRoom. By combining a Kinect camera and a projector, IllumiRoom turns the area around your television into a game screen. The Kinect captures the appearance and geometry of the room, and then it uses this data to adapt the extra visuals that are projected against the wall and furniture around your TV.

The Xbox One's controller doesn't have touch elements, it's essentially the same as the 360's controller but with individual force-feedback to buttons.

The improved Kinect (Kinect 2.0) is sold separately and not doing any room-projecting at launch.

Originally Posted by El Chuxter

I want to go back in time and kill Steve Jobs as an infant, preventing this touch-screen thing from ever catching on. The screens never seem to work for me, so I guess I'm going to have to be stuck in the stone age forever since everything is moving in that direction.

Steve Jobs didn't invent touch screen or even pioneer it. If it hadn't been the ipad, it would have been a different tablet device, Microsoft had been trying to do touchscreen computing for years before Apple. And the Palm Pilot came before the Apple Newton.

The new Samsung Galaxy S4 has an improved digitizer, so in a year or so I'm sure most cheaper phones will step up their touchscreen game as well.

Originally Posted by Darth Metalmute

There would be such a huge anti-trust lawsuit if the next gen consoles pulled that crap. It would completely shut down several companies whose sole purpose is renting games.

So, the news is out on the Xbox One, the next-gen Xbox. It has 8gb of ram, a 500gb harddrive, an 8-core CPU (no clock data yet I think), wifi-n, USB 3.0, Blu-Ray... and every game disk requires an install, which is supposed to lock out used sales without an extra purchase. That's some nerve. Sounds like game rental companies are going to be in trouble.

Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

"In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"

The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

The PS3 has been sold at a profit for the last 3 years, the Xbox 360 for the last 5 years.

Meanwhile, the Wii U is sold at a loss - despite its middling hardware (seriously, who puts a 1.2ghz tri-core CPU, a 550mhz GPU, and just 2gb RAM, and 8gb flash memory in a next-gen console?!? My cellphone has better specs and it's a cellphone) - and without the blu-ray and gamecube emulation (which WOULD have been easy had they put truly next-gen hardware in this thing) the Wii U's sales are in a tailspin, April's sales were down 19% from March's.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I was saying. PS3 and Xbox 360 has indeed been sold at a profit for the last few years now on a system by system basis. Prior to that though the systems were sold at a loss (under the premise that they could make up the money in game licensing fees). As a whole PS3 and Xbox 360 are in the red. The Wii U on the other hand (while currently being sold at a loss) is actually, as a whole, has already made up that difference (on currently available systems) from game licensing fees.

Originally Posted by JediTricks

The Xbox One's controller doesn't have touch elements, it's essentially the same as the 360's controller but with individual force-feedback to buttons.

The improved Kinect (Kinect 2.0) is sold separately and not doing any room-projecting at launch.

Keep in mind that the touch pad for the controller was only rumored and the system had not yet been revealed when I posted that. With that said, touch elements still feature into the system. Xbox One supports SmartGlass, an application that allows mobile devices (like tablets and smart phones) to potentially serve as second screens and controllers. As for the new Kinect, I haven't heard any mention of it being sold separately. Honestly it seems unlikely it would be sold separately given the fact its been confirmed that the system requires the new Kinect to be connected. It is unclear what Microsoft has planned for IllumiRoom in future, though I don't think anyone realistically expected it at Xbox One's launch.

Originally Posted by JediTricks

So, the news is out on the Xbox One, the next-gen Xbox. It has 8gb of ram, a 500gb harddrive, an 8-core CPU (no clock data yet I think), wifi-n, USB 3.0, Blu-Ray... and every game disk requires an install, which is supposed to lock out used sales without an extra purchase. That's some nerve. Sounds like game rental companies are going to be in trouble.

The RAM of Xbox One is 8GB GDDR3, as opposed to PS4's 8GB GDDR5. You can play a game that you own using your own account from any Xbox One system, though you can't share that game with others unless they're either signed into your account as you or are playing their account on the same system as your account. This means in addition to used game sales you'd also likely have to pay that extra fee if you just plan on borrowing the game from a friend or renting the game through something like Redbox/Gamefly/Blockbuster/etc. In addition, if someone else pays the fee to use said game on their system, its reported that the previous install of said game will be deactivated to the original owner. This has some potential serious implications. It likely means that if the game were "borrowed" not only would the borrower have to pay the fee, but the original owner would likely also have to pay the fee to play their game again after the other person borrowing it was done.

As for the next Xbox being always online, there's a new rumor that Microsoft has reversed course on that:

Finally got the low down on the "always online" requirement that was rumored to be and then not to be. Turns out we have an Obi-Wan "certain point of view" scenario going on there. As you probably already heard from the Xbox One unveiling yesterday, the system doesn't literally have to be "always online" 24/7 in order to work. The system does however require a mandatory internet connection though in order for it to even function. For the Xbox One to start up, it will need to have an online connection every time the system is turned on. I'm assuming this means only when the system is turned on from a completely off state (unplugged/no power), not when the system is turned on from an "off state" in which the system is technically still on in a low power/sleep mode (for auto updates over the internet and such). In order to play a video game, even if it is single-player, the Xbox One will also need to be online for the initial install of the game and again at least once every 24 hours after that otherwise the game will become disabled.

Finally got the low down on the "always online" requirement that was rumored to be and then not to be. Turns out we have an Obi-Wan "certain point of view" scenario going on there. As you probably already heard from the Xbox One unveiling yesterday, the system doesn't literally have to be "always online" 24/7 in order to work. The system does however require a mandatory internet connection though in order for it to even function. For the Xbox One to start up, it will need to have an online connection every time the system is turned on. I'm assuming this means only when the system is turned on from a completely off state (unplugged/no power), not when the system is turned on from an "off state" in which the system is technically still on in a low power/sleep mode (for auto updates over the internet and such). In order to play a video game, even if it is single-player, the Xbox One will also need to be online for the initial install of the game and again at least once every 24 hours after that otherwise the game will become disabled.

Does this mean that casual gamers will have to pay a fee if they don't play daily?

Sounds like "jail-breaking" your X-Box will be the easy answer.

Nowhere in your incoherent ramblings did you come anywhere close to the answer. Thanks to you, everyone in this room is now stupider having heard you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. -Billy Madison-

Does this mean that casual gamers will have to pay a fee if they don't play daily?

Sounds like "jail-breaking" your X-Box will be the easy answer.

Originally Posted by El Chuxter

So, if you go on vacation and disconnect your router to save power, your games won't work?

That. Is. Bull. Shevik.

In regard to paying a fee if you don't check in daily Metalmute, that would be a no. The extra fee stuff pertains to Microsoft wanting a cut of used video game sales, and by extension, the implications it will also have (be it intentional or unintentional) on borrowing games from family/friends and/or game rentals. In regards to what El Chuxter is asking about games not working if you go on vacation and unplug your stuff, the answer is sort of. The game should work for about 24 hours give or take if you don't check in with an online connection. After the 24 hour period is up though the game will cease to work. But from the way it sounds your games will become reactivated automatically the next time the system connects to the internet. So you should be alright to unplug your system and go on vacation. Yeah, your game will cease to work while you are gone, but you aren't there to play it (so that shouldn't matter) and it'll be good to go once you get back and connect to the internet. Now if you want to play your video games and say you have an internet outage that last several days in your area or you have your system in a place that has little or no internet access (like you had to cut off your internet for financial reasons or if you are in the military where internet may not be readily available depending on where you are stationed), then you would be in trouble. This could also screw the system's longevity beyond this current generation if you think about it. Once Microsoft moves on to their next generation console 5 to 10 years from now they'll eventually stop supporting the Xbox One system (which is the natural fate of all past consoles sooner or later). By extension the online servers used to support the Xbox One will also stop being supported in favor of the next generation console and its servers. With older systems (NES, SNES, etc.) you can play the systems to this day if you own them in working condition. No servers for the Xbox One though to check into equals "expensive brick" past this generation.

According to Phil Harrison and confirmed by Larry Hryb, the fee to play a used game, or a borrow game, will be full price.

Way to screw everyone over Microsoft. PS4 is still hush-hush on the issue. Maybe they are waiting to see the backlash of XBOX One.

Nowhere in your incoherent ramblings did you come anywhere close to the answer. Thanks to you, everyone in this room is now stupider having heard you. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. -Billy Madison-

According to Phil Harrison and confirmed by Larry Hryb, the fee to play a used game, or a borrow game, will be full price. Way to screw everyone over Microsoft.

I must say that the Xbox One (as a video game console) so far has underwhelmed me in just about every possible way from its revealing the other day. Aside from a few brief trailers and graphical picture comparisons (of an Xbox One Call of Duty game to an Xbox 360 Call of Duty game) the games were completely skipped over. Microsoft rather spend the gamer's time showing us how your video game console should be used for everything that isn't about gaming because of how quick you can switch from watching TV, to streaming movies/shows, to using the internet to browse or skype. You then have the BS Q&As afterwards with all these employees giving ambiguous and even conflicting answers (left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing) of the restrictions/requirements with internet connections and used game fees etc... its just one big nightmare of a headache. But hey, as long as Microsoft can produce and stream new/exclusive TV shows like "Halo: The TV Series" by Steven Spielberg through Xbox Live Gold Membership (similar to what Netflix is doing with the new season of Arrested Development) all is good right? Microsoft has dug themselves one serious ditch. They are going to have to bring their A game to E3 with concrete system info: cost, release date, step by step explanation of used game fee (concerning how the transfer of game rights will work, how it will effect borrowing/rentals, etc.), how the system works with cable/satellite services. Even then, I don't think that many gamers will be touting that Xbox One as a definite winner this generation. "Xbox Won" alright.

Originally Posted by Darth Metalmute

PS4 is still hush-hush on the issue. Maybe they are waiting to see the backlash of XBOX One.

Sony has gone on record as saying that the PS4 will play used games and that they would never think of completely blocking used games. At face value this sounds reassuring, but upon closer inspection the statement does leave a lot of ambiguity for broad interpretation. Could mean used games will be treated as they always have been for all previous console generations. Then again it could mean a similar situation as the Xbox One (technically the used game isn't completely blocked, its only blocked till you pay an added fee). This patent taken out by Sony not to long ago would suggest the Xbox One scenario. Hopefully more clarification comes at E3 in about three weeks. Suddenly Wii U, even with all its faults, isn't looking so bad.